P2P and cd/dvd copying to be illegal in Canada

[gll99]

Interesting story in my local paper today.

Going further than in any other country in the world, legislation was tabled on Monday that will make P2P software illegal, even downloading with the authors consent will be an illegal act. The provincial governments who are responsible for education have been trying to convince the federal goverment to allow exceptions for schools to allow downloading of non encrypted school related material provided freely by authors but the federal Liberal government refuses to budge. In addition the breaking of cd and dvd encryption will also be illegal. We are only getting a bit of information in the press because the stories are buried in the back pages and don't provide much detail. The 2 articles I found in the last 2 weeks were small columns with the minimum of information. Since browsers and ftp software are also able to download copyright material, the law as it stands now may be banning those also. I know it sounds absurb but the schools are worried. From what can be seen, all the discussion were done in the backrooms with the music and movie industry lobby and little if any community input. I don't recall seeing any public notices of any proposed changes except one small newspaper article last year saying that they were looking at complaints from the movie and music industry after failed court cases.
The measures as they stand now will change the face of the internet in Canada forever.

[djelimon]

this is kind of a drag, but I don't see them banning ftp and browsers - waaay too many businesses on Bay street use these tools, Martin would be blasting corporate and industrial Canada back to the stone age, we'd fold like a house of cards.

Decryption is another matter, but I don't see how they will firewall the nation. Long as I can talk to Antigua or China, I'm good. Downloading big stuff is a pain in the arse anyway. I just want to back my shit up.

[gll99]

this is kind f adrag, bu I don;t see them bannig ftp and browsers - waaay too many businesses on Bay street use these tools, Martin would be blasting corporate Canada back to the stone age, we'd fold like a house of cards.

Decryption is another matter, bu I don't see how they will firewall the nation. Long as I can talk to Antigua or China, I'm good. Downloading big stuff is a pain in the arse anyway.

I'm not saying they can ban browers but the school reps are saying that their whole internet teaching curriculum basically becomes illegal with the law as it stands.
If p2p and breaking cd/dvd encryption is illegal in Canada it doesn't matter if the program is resident in Antigua, getting it and using it will be illegal here.

[djelimon]

If p2p and breaking cd/dvd encryption is illegal in Canada it doesn't matter if the program is resident in Antigua, getting it and using it will be illegal here.

But very hard to enforce

[ROBERT BLACK]

He won't make it illegal. P2P is used by an estimated 8 million Canadians. They would all be criminals.


I'd sure like a link to that newspaper article. I suspect it's just part of more corporate media posturing. If you make it SEEM illegal in the public's eyes, maybe some of them will believe it. Until it's enshrined as law It's Bullshit. Even then, I'd like to see them enforce it.

[ungamunga]

Sounds like a fairly alarmist interpretation of Bill C-60.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/06/20/Arts/copyright050620.html

Here is the bill in question:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60_cover-E.html

It makes it illegal (note: illegal does not necessarily mean criminal) to upload copyrighted data. Meh, it arguably already is illegal to fileshare in Canada (it is also illegal for your ISP to tell on you, so it's not really and enforceable prohibition). I've only skimmed the bill but it sounds like those reporters in your local paper are the only ones reporting this because they are the only ones with such an extreme interpretation of the bill.

The loophole was that the ISPs were compelled by privacy legislation not to cooperate with copyright holders. The music industry sued the big ISPs saying they were essentially aiding filesharers. The ISPs said they had a duty under law to protect their customer's private info. Now, in exchange for being clearly made non-liable, those ISPs get to pass on warnings (and in some cases info). Looks like you still need a court order to get the ISPs to hand over personal info. I didn't see anything in my skimming that suggested that the new privacy law was getting massively rewritten. This is a reasonable barrier to avoid copyright holders engaging in tons of frivolous lawsuits (oh, and our judges really hate those).

In other words, it'll still be a pain in the butt for copyright holders to sue every average Joe downloader but it lets them go after the big sharers. However, the copyright holders will not be able to go after them. Before, they were completely stalemated (although most ISPs will take their complaints and send letters to clients saying they are violating the terms of their service contracts by violating copywritten material).

It means that using BitTorrent and similar P2P apps will carry a potential risk, namely that you could get sued. The real question is how high the penalties could be, and I suspect that it would scale with the number of files shared. It's kind of like littering... if you ditch a soda can, odds are that no one will care. If you dump a truckload of them, that will get you in trouble.

The Canadian government (and most governments) only enforce intellectual property rights in a passive manner (e.g. keeping registers of registered IP) and by enforcing criminal law (e.g. fraud). Intellectual property owners are responsible for policing their properties. That's a basic priniciple in our IP law. Our copyright office has something like a dozen employees. They sure as heck aren't going to police all of Canada's IP. In other words, they music/move companies will have to sue you (and that's expensive to do so they won't bother unless you are worth it).

The police won't come to your door at their request unless they can show you have something like a pirate media operation going (i.e. criminal fraud). Cops have the option to exercise disgression and you can bet they'd rather focus on serious crime. This sort of thing is something you get sued over. Can you imagine how the public would react if filesharing teens started getting criminal records over something like filesharing?

Nothing this common and socially accepted will ever be criminalized because the voter backlash would be huge. With our minority government, it'd be electoral suicide to try to ram something that unpopular though. People are willing to accept big filesharers and pirates getting sued. There will be public backlash if little Johnny gets sued. Canadians aren't fond of big business flexing it's muscle against little guys. Voters will get peeved.

Also, keep in mind that this bill is now being introduced. It isn't law yet... nowhere near being law. Most bills get modified to make them more reasonable (often at the Senate's request... they are useful for toning down the more outrageous stuff the Commons introduce).

It's also a low priority for the Liberal government so it is likely to die on the floor when a new election is called after the Gomery report.

Assuming it survives, odds are that a semi-reasonable amended version of this law will come into effect at the end of 2006. The schools will lobby parliament to fix whatever they don't like and as always, parliament will water things down to try to make everyone happy.

Intellectual property law is a very low priority with Parliament. Voters don't vote for anyone based on shiny new IP laws. If anything, those laws can lose you votes if they are too extreme. Making the music industry happy can win you campaign contributions, but only up to a point thanks to those new campaign funding laws. It's a lot harder for companies to buy political influence than it once was.

Frankly, if it wasn't for our trading partners in the international community, our government would be happy to overlook the issue for years to come. It's a headache and it's unpopular. I'd expect that whatever ends up becoming law will meet our treaty obligations but not go much farther than that.

[ungamunga]

He won't make it illegal. P2P is used by an estimated 8 million Canadians. They would all be criminals.

Sure, it can be illegal. Illegal means it violates a law. That does not mean that it draws criminal sanction. That is reserved for serious violations of the law.

It is illegal to speed. You get a ticket.
It is illegal to break a contract. You could get sued over it.

Neither is criminal.

[BJ_M]

prob. be enforced less than gun registration ...


it is an imposable task ..

I cant find anything in the star or globe about this

though i knew the legislation was up for a vote, i sent 6 letters and emails to my rep and got no replys ..

[BJ_M]

ahh from canada press:

Liberal bill takes aim at music file sharers

Jun. 20, 2005. 07:13 PM

Peer-to-peer users were put on notice today after the Liberal government introduced a bill calling for stricter copyright legislation to crack down on music sharing.

Bill C-60 would amend the Copyright Act, bringing it up to speed with today's technologies, namely Internet activities like file-sharing and burning unlimited copies of CDs and movies.

The biggest change comes through a "make available" clause that would make it illegal to upload songs into online shared directories, as is the case when using Kazaa or BitTorrent, unless you are the rights holder of the material.

The amendments would also create anti-tampering laws to prevent people from cracking copyright protection seals on CDs. They do not prevent people from making copies for personal use.

The bill, said Heritage Minister Liza Frulla, sends "the message to everybody out there that it's not free because it's on the Internet."

"The objective was to modernize the Copyright Act in order to be able to clarify the rights of the authors and to include the control over . . . making available their material on the Internet," she said in Ottawa.

If passed, the bill would exempt Internet Service Providers, such as Rogers and Telus, from copyright liability. The ISPs would instead have to implement a new warning system, called "notice and notice," something they currently do on an informal basis.

Customers would receive a notice letter from their ISP that a rights holder is alleging the sharing of copyright-protected information. It would ask the individual to remove the material from the shared directory or face a lawsuit.

The introduction of the legislation before summer recess came as music to the ears of copyright holders who've been lobbying government for years saying they've lost millions to illegal downloading of music, movies and software.

"We're flooded with relief," said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, the organization that represents music labels.

The Toronto-based group has been working hard to stop music pirates, having launched an unsuccessful Federal Court case last year to force ISPs to reveal the identities of customers who made large volumes of songs available online.

"It's now pretty obvious . . . the Canadian government intends this activity, uploading, to be illegal. There's now no issue about that."

But at least one Internet rights group criticized the legislation saying it goes too far.

"This bill is a massive, massive giveaway to rights holders," said David Fewer, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and counsel for the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

"These are rights that belong to users currently, to researchers and to consumers."

The legislation will have to pass through several stages before it becomes law. That wouldn't happen until much later in the year or perhaps next spring.

[BJ_M]

The legislation will have to pass through several stages before it becomes law. That wouldn't happen until much later in the year or perhaps next spring.

the current gov. here is not going to last that long anyway

[ROF]

Look like all Canadians won't be visiting this or any other website anymore. Each website you visit has information by others and that information when downloaded and displayed by your browser would be considered illegal.

So let's get this straight, you can smoke grass, but you can't surf the web? Is the air that cold up there?

[gll99]

One of the current article is in today's Ottawa Citizen page A6 by Sarah Smhmidt. The story is entitled "Education ministers call for exceptions to copyright act".

I tend to agree that the opinion she writes may be overstated but it shows the confusion that this will cause. I've since read other internet articles and many present a much more balanced view.

I did a google search and here's a more detailed opinion by a copyright expert on the same law. His opinion is much more open and seems to directly contradict what she said in her brief comments on the subject.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

Who can we believe and how will this play out in the courts?

I won't risk my home and my limted assets and risk a court challenge over the backup of a DVD. I guess it's wait and see for a while anyway.

[BJ_M]

yes - i already posted this from him before here .. but ok to repeat it again ...

[BJ_M]

Look like all Canadians won't be visiting this or any other website anymore. Each website you visit has information by others and that information when downloaded and displayed by your browser would be considered illegal.

So let's get this straight, you can smoke grass, but you can't surf the web? Is the air that cold up there?

it was overstated in the first post ...

[canadateck]

You would think they were trying to Gain publicity with all these "controversial" Bills they are trying to Pass.



There is so much to be said about this and other things happening here in canada.


One Hour Martinizing

[BJ_M]

You would think they were trying to Gain publicity with all these "controversial" Bills they are trying to Pass.



There is so much to be said about this and other things happening here in canada.

yes - but then it turns into a political discussion

[canadateck]

yes - but then it turns into a political discussion

My Point.

[ungamunga]

I won't risk my home and my limted assets and risk a court challenge over the backup of a DVD. I guess it's wait and see for a while anyway.

Why in the world would you incur risk from backing up a DVD? That's fair use and besides we already pay a levy on media to cover copying. I'm not sure if that levy has been extended to DVDs yet but undoubtly it will be in time if it isn't yet. Personal copies are kosher. Even downloading stuff is not a big issue (what could they sue you for? the cost of buying the DVD? no judge will award massive punitive damages for something so minor -- besides, it is kind of presumed that you will be DLing for personal use and the damage is limited to a single copy).

The big issue is *uploading* (i.e. sharing) the files... making them accessable to thousands of downloaders. That's the part of the P2P equation that carries all the big headaches because it can mean disseminating so many copies.

The big question is how judges will assess damages for that. If they are smart, they'll look at stuff like upload ratios. If you uploaded 1GB of data from a 200MB avi file of a movie worth $20, then it would make sense to assess damages at the value of 5 copies (1GB/200MB) of that $20 movie... say $100.

If you are sharing 1000 files on a fat pipe, this amounts to a lot of money but hey, then you are really someone who is digging into potential sales. Joe average sharing a small number of files isn't a likely lawsuit defendent. Big filesharers end up facing serious legal costs and the small time sharers are scared a little and share less.

A judge hostile to the prosecution might even consider the real odds of those being sales actually occuring and reduce the damages accordingly. An unimpressed judge could also choose not to award damages, especially if he feels the company is going overboard. Few companies will be happy to spend several thousands in legal fees to win a few hundred or a couple of thousand in damages. They will seek the biggest bang for their legal buck.

Anything below a set amount will end up in small claims courts and isn't worth the copyright holder's time. Menacing cease and desist letters are more cost effective with small time sharers.

[BJ_M]

what planet are you from

[SLK001]

Seems like you Canadians are ripe for revolution!

[BJ_M]

to drunk and stoned most of the time

[gll99]

BJ_M

yes - i already posted this from him before here .. but ok to repeat it again ...

I was writting my comment when you posted so didn't see yours. Repetion for emphasis.


@ungamunga

Your comment on fair use doesn't seem to apply. I read a comment in one of the online articles where this law doesn't even address fair use as a right.

There are some interesting things which will affect those who store material on isp servers like private homepages etc..
It will take some reading and interpreting to know the full impact of what is being tabled. If the entertainment industries are happy and the ISP are absolved of most responsibility for the actions of members and the only losers are said to be users and educators then everything can't be right.

[BJ_M]

no - i meant this topic was already started in this thread below some time ago and really this is a duplicate thread here

see here

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=271005&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc...ghlight=canada

[gll99]

@BJ_M
Sorry buddy! I searched latest news before posting this and missed it.

[BJ_M]

no problem, i didnt freak .. plus im kinda pissed at parts of the bill anyway ........... and the non response from my representative

[gll99]

@BJ_M
You could combine this thread under yours if you want, just to keep it together.

I'm still not sure if it's ok to back up a cd or dvd and break the encryption to do it. Some online comments seem to say that it's ok if it's not for the purpose of selling...renting, or making available to others for free (as in p2p upload) etc...

Seems to leave the door open to downloading or copying for personal use. Don't know if that's only people's (or my) interpretation or actual fact since I'm reading the various opinions rather quickly. That is to say that if it's for private use you can still copy any copyrighted material even if you don't own a paid copy. The motive and ultimate use is the key to this law. Or is this interpretation way off base?

(To all: This is not meant to open any political discussion, just my observation)
In case someone thinks this is a political issue I believe all parties support some version of this law so it won't go away no matter what the situation here becomes.

I've sent comments before on other topics to my reps either to their official office or to the parties offices and never received an acknowledgement let alone a reply so I'm not surprised at their not responding to you, BJ_M.